Reporting on the Facts and Circumstances of Religious Freedom

by Glen on 2002-06-16 00:01:42

In its 2001 Annual Report the State Department has again done a highly commendable job in telling the tragic story of severe violations of religious freedom around the globe. The Department continues to improve the already high quality of its report and to reflect a more complete understanding of religious freedom issues through the extensive presentation of facts. The report again reflects serious efforts by foreign service officers around the world.

An exception to the generally thorough reporting on the facts and circumstances of religious freedom is this year s report on France. During the period covered by the report, the French Parliament enacted an amendment to the criminal code that established a new crime of fraudulent abuse of a state of ignorance or weakness and allowed for the dissolution of any organization whose leadership has been convicted twice of certain criminal offenses, including the offense established by the new law. Although the new law applies to all organizations in France, it was enacted in response to concerns regarding the activities of so-called sects , a vaguely defined set of groups that include, in some government documents, Jehovah s Witnesses, Scientologists, and various Roman Catholic and Evangelical Christian groups. While the fact that a law was passed during the reporting period is mentioned, the provisions of the law are inadequately described in the report. Moreover, while the report sensibly concludes that this legislation has the potential to restrict religious freedom, specific concerns including those raised by several organizations both inside and outside of France are not discussed. This omission is striking given the tremendous amount of international attention that has been paid to this legislative initiative over the past three years, including in the Department s 1999 Annual Report. Furthermore, as noted below, the section on policy does not describe how the U.S. plans to monitor the implementation of this law or the atmosphere of discrimination toward religious minorities that some contend has resulted from its enactment. On anther note, although the report mentions and provides some statistics on an upswing in anti-Semitic violence in France, it does not discuss the reasons behind this trend or the French government s ineffective response to it. Although the report on Saudi Arabia correctly concludes that [f]reedom of religion does not exist in that country, it does not adequately describe the extent of restrictions on the religious practice of both non-Muslims and Muslim religious minorities. The report notes briefly that most non-Muslims are forced to worship in such a manner as to avoid discovery by the government or others. The report does not, however, document the lengths to which non- 23 Muslims must go to organize and keep their religious practice secret from the authorities, neighbors, or employers. In addition, although it does describe numerous restrictions on the public religious practice of Saudi Arabia s one million Shi a Muslims, the report does not present a complete characterization of restrictions on Muslims who do not follow the strict interpretation of Islam enforced by the government. Public manifestations of the religious belief of such Muslims are all but completely prohibited. The report should state this, but does not. Notwithstanding some of the procedural standards mentioned that govern the activities of the mutawaa, or religious police, the report fails to note that there is no viable mechanism to lodge official complaints regarding its abuses or any independent monitoring of its actions. Nor does the report describe the informal pressures that dissuade foreign workers, in particular, from making such complaints. Finally, the report does not describe the role of the state s education system a system controlled by the official religious establishment in fostering some of the prevalent, intolerant attitudes reported to exist among the general population toward non- Muslims and the Shi a Muslim minority. The report on Vietnam describes in detail the many restrictions and controls on religious organizations in that country. It also recounts the arrest, detention, and in some cases imprisonment of prominent religious figures of several religious communities in Vietnam, leaders who have been vocal in their criticism of the Vietnamese government s failure to protect religious freedom. Despite the fact that these arrests occurred during the period covered by the report, the report concluded that the status of respect for religious freedom did not change during that period.

Although the report properly concludes that the government imposed . . . its own leadership on the official bodies created to govern the affairs of the Buddhist, Hao Hoa, and Cao Dai faiths, it does not mention that the majority of the members of the Hao Hoa management body are members of the Vietnamese Communist Party and are therefore unlikely to be dedicated to the beliefs and goals of that faith.4 In the report on China, numerous serious violations of religious freedom and related human rights are listed under the heading of abuses of religious freedom. Absent from this listing, however, are severe violations of the rights of Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang, including executions and torture of prisoners. The report does note some significant regional variations in the protection of religious freedom and the enforcement by local officials of repressive central government policies. It would be helpful, however, if the report described these differences in greater detail and gave underlying reasons, if known, for those regional variations. This type of information would assist policymakers in targeting U.S. actions to oppose violations and promote respect for religious freedom. The chapter on Nigeria describes extensive communal conflict arising from the introduction of Shariah criminal law in several northern states, conflict that has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Muslims and Christians, as well as extensive damage to places of worship and other property. Although some attention is paid to efforts by the Nigerian government to prevent further violence and reduce communal tensions, virtually no information is provided on Nigerian government efforts to bring the perpetrators of violence to justice. The same is true in relation to the abuses, described in the report, by quasi-official or vigilante Shariah enforcers who have begun to operate in several of the northern states.

Information on holding violators of human rights accountable for their actions whether government officials or private persons is critical in assessing a government s ability and willingness to protect religious freedom. Such 24 information should be routinely provided as part of the reporting on violations of religious freedom and related human rights.5 Information is notably lacking in other country reports where egregious violations of religious freedom are described. One example is the report on Mexico, where several serious incidents are reported involving community leaders in the Chiapas region targeting religious minorities with expulsion and other serious forms of harassment. With one exception, no information is provided on efforts by the Mexican government to hold these leaders accountable for their actions. The Commission has noted in the past that the Department s Annual Report should include contextual information that helps to explain more fully religious freedom problems and that relates religious freedom concerns to other issues of U.S. policy. This year, several reports contain more such information. One example is Sudan, cited last year by the Commission as lacking in important contextual information.

This year s report on Sudan describes the civil war and its associated humanitarian abuses (such as indiscriminate aerial bombardment of schools, medical facilities, and markets), as well as the taking of slaves, in the context of religious freedom concerns. The report does not, however, discuss the well-established link between government oil revenues and its prosecution of the civil war, although this is mentioned in the Department s Sudan Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 2001. However, in some countries, significant context is still lacking. The report on the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia deals only cursorily with the conflict between the Macedonian Orthodox majority and the Albanian Muslim minority. There is a significant element of religion in the conflict, and thus the potential for religious freedom abuses, that is not addressed in the report. Addressing this issue would not only help to clarify the conditions of religious freedom in the country, but also highlight how religious freedom concerns are included in U.S. policy regarding the conflict itself. Last year s Annual Report included a section in the Executive Summary entitled Improvements in International Religious Freedom, the contents of which was also reported in the individual country chapters. At that time, the Commission commented that the reporting of such improvements must be carefully handled in order to avoid misrepresentation of the conditions of religious freedom. Positive developments deserve to be noted in the report, but anything less than real and fundamental progress should not be labeled as improvements . The mention of small steps in the Executive Summary could overshadow an overall negative situation. The executive summary should be the place to report on fundamental, lasting change in the protection of religious freedom indeed, IRFA requires this but not isolated events that may be positive. Severe persecutors can make a positive gesture without improving the overall conditions of religious freedom. On occasion they do it to deflect criticism and mislead foreign observers. Although the name of the heading for this section has been changed in this year s report, the basic problem remains: the Executive Summary should highlight real improvements, not small, potentially insignificant steps. The latter should be discussed in the context of the overall conditions of religious freedom in a particular country; i.e. in the country reports, and not in a separate section of the Executive Summary. Finally, in the Annual Report the State Department should cite appropriate key findings and recommendations by the Commission: for example, its determinations that certain countries merit designation by the Secretary of State as CPCs and other findings such as that religion is a major factor in the ongoing civil war in Sudan. As IRFA provides, the Secretary of State should prepare the Annual Report taking into consideration the recommendations of the Commission. 6 Those preparing the reports should be familiar with the Commission s reports, and should where appropriate use and cite them.